Flournoy v. CJS Solutions Group, LLC CA3

Filed 5/23/22 Flournoy v. CJS Solutions Group, LLC CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (El Dorado) ----

OTTIST FLOURNOY, C092075

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. PC20180406)

v.

CJS SOLUTIONS GROUP, LLC,

Defendant and Appellant.

Plaintiff Ottist Flournoy filed a putative class action against his former employer, defendant CJS Solutions Group, LLC, doing business as The HCI Group (HCI), alleging numerous wage and hour claims. While the lawsuit was pending, HCI offered plaintiff a new position of employment, which plaintiff accepted. As part of the hiring process, plaintiff signed an arbitration agreement, which purported to refer all past, present, and future individual claims to arbitration, and waived his right to have any dispute heard or arbitrated on a class basis.

1

HCI then filed a motion to compel arbitration of plaintiff’s individual claims and to strike his class claims pursuant to the class action waiver. The trial court granted HCI’s petition to compel plaintiff’s individual claims to arbitration but found the class action waiver was unenforceable and thus declined to strike the class action claims. HCI appeals from the trial court’s order denying its request to strike plaintiff’s class action claims. Plaintiff cross-appeals, challenging the balance of the trial court’s ruling compelling his individual claims to arbitration. We ordered supplemental briefing on the question of whether HCI could appeal that portion of the trial court’s ruling declining to strike the class claims. We now conclude that no part of the trial court’s ruling is appealable, and we accordingly dismiss both the appeal and cross-appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual history HCI hired plaintiff in October 2017. On August 9, 2018, plaintiff filed this putative class action against HCI, alleging seven wage and hour claims. In December 2018, HCI offered plaintiff another position, which was conditioned upon, among other things, plaintiff’s assent to the Company’s mutual arbitration agreement (the arbitration agreement). The arbitration agreement stated that all past, present, and future claims and controversies between the parties arising out of plaintiff’s employment or termination must be resolved by arbitration. It also contained a delegation clause, granting the arbitrator exclusive authority to resolve any dispute relating to the interpretation, applicability, enforceability, or formation of the arbitration agreement. However, the delegation clause expressly did not apply to the “Class Action and Collective Action Waivers” in the arbitration agreement (the class action waiver), which purported to waive the parties’ rights for “any dispute to be brought, heard, decided, or arbitrated as a class action” and gave the arbitrator “no authority to hear or preside over